Forum:CT:Cut content in the bio section, redux

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Cut content in the bio section, redux

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Place cut content in the BTS or its own section, not in the main section, for in-universe articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Six months ago to the day, we had a CT on whether to keep various kinds of non-canon/ambiguous material in the canon biography/history sections. Three of them we came to conclusions on, one—cut content—reached no consensus. So, I'm calling this again, because I think the idea that we allow cut content—content that was removed from canon sources—is absurd. So, reasons:

First, it's cut. Gone, removed, excised, not in a canon source. If it's included in the Holocron anyway, we need to know that it is, or at the least a general statement from Chee like he gave Tales stories. "Cut content" is much too broad a category to assume that it might have some place in canon (not to mention that "might be canon" isn't what Wookieepedia is for) when there's cut stuff that clearly isn't. A common argument seen is that it might become canon someday, or that it's been known to become canon in the past. This is true, and when that happens, we should include it. But until then, it's cut. I'm stressing this because it's the defining reason why it doesn't belong in the main article body. Cut = not in a canon source, simple as that.

Clarification: This does not include content cut from one canon source, and included in another, like deleted scenes used in a movie's novelization. Those are in a canon source, and this is about content appearing in no canon source.

It's also asking for trouble in terms of what to include. Should elements of a What's the Story? submission that were removed from the final entry be included in the main section? How about elements like Sate Molock that became someone else in the final product? Or elements like Darth Homiiz that don't even have a place in the product as it exists? How about Alien Exodus? Do all of these belong somewhere in the main article section of the appropriate article, or can we say they were cut for a reason and at best leave them to the BTS? It's not all Lightsider and Castaways of Endor, is what I'm saying. There are cut elements that even when they don't explicitly contradict anything still clearly have nothing to do with canon as it is now.

Some people were confused about this on the initial vote, so I want to stress it: cut content can—and should, where appropriate—still be included in Behind the Scenes or its own separate section. In many cases it's useful for the evolution of the character, or what might have been had a certain story or article been released. Where it doesn't have a place is the main article body, amongst canon information.

Discuss. - Lord Hydronium 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Quoted with permission from Havac, from the last CT:

Now, there's nothing wrong with including this information in articles. We'd be remiss if we didn't. However, including it alongside canon information in the main section is a horrible idea. It's just an island of noncanon in a sea of canon, surrounded by ugly tags, which adds nothing to the reader's understanding of canon and only detracts from it. By placing this in the main section, it interrupts the flow of an otherwise canonical article. An article which could have flowed from one canonical event to the other now has to interrupt itself to explain something which frequently does not fit with the surrounding events in that timeframe. In order to properly contextualize it, it's required to go into OOU detail which does not belong in the main body. Without that context, the canonical paragraph before it, in order to flow as anything more than a muddled mess, has to transition into something that did not happen. The paragraph after the information then has to transition out of something that did not happen. Quite frankly, it dumps a pile of shit inside the article and expects you to work around it. I don't know how an article like that could possibly be FA'd; this is simply incompatible with our standards of quality.

Vote

Place cut content in the BTS or its own section

  1. Lord Hydronium 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Duh. -- Ozzel 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Wow. Graestan(Talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Havac 03:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Seems self-evident, but, whatever. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. BTS is fine. Just don't completely cut the cut material :P —Xwing328(Talk) 04:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Imperialles 06:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. --Eyrezer 06:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Xwing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Remove with extreme prejudice. I couldn't believe this got a single keep vote the first time around, let alone a majority, and I'm glad we've got a chance to correct that. jSarek 09:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per Jorrel and Xwing. This is exactly the sort of thing BTS is good at. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per Xwing. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. I changed my mind from last time. Sometimes cut content doesn't contradict canon, and could be put into the main section of an in-universe article without interfering with the flow or confusing readers. But this is the exception rather than the rule, so it's best to just say "leave it in the BtS." —Silly Dan (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Strong support. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Obviously. Carlitos Moff 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Tocneppil 10:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. I've been doing this anyways. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. As have I.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Unit 8311 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Din's Fire 997 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow cut content in the main biographical section

  1. Allow it unless it clearly contradicts canon. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

By "bio section", I presume we mean "main sections of in-universe articles", since this rule should apply to IU articles on ships, creatures, battles, etc. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Just in case this comes up as an issue after closing—and precedent says it very well may—yes, the main article section. - Lord Hydronium 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.